James Boyce (1) (1964–)

Boyce's thesis is interesting, and has some attractions, but is completely unproven and untested. The problem with this book is that it has neither comparisons nor surveys, which makes it difficult to assess the author's assertions. Are people in the traditionally Western Christian cultures more anxious than other people as he suggests? Surveys may be hard to come by, but it should be possible to compare their view of human nature to other cultures. How about completely different cultures – do they have an optimistic view of human nature in contrast to the Western Christian perspective?

Boyce argues that the Original Sin idea is so imbedded in Western culture that no-one can escape its subtle influences, even if they dismiss the myth, making for an unfalsifiable argument, even though he admits that the question of whether the dismissal of religious beliefs can overcome “the ingrained suppositions of the religious tradition.” cannot be definitively answered.

According to Boyce, among the religions that share the Adam-and-Eve myth, Western Christianity is the only one that believes in original sin. I understand the distinction, but does it make a real difference? Boyce cites Western Christian leaders quoting Hebrew scripture that appears to indicate that humanity is born sinful, i.e., in Job (“No-one is pure from uncleaness … not even the infant, whose life is but that of a single day upon the earth”); and an unspecified prophet (Behold I was shapen in iniquities, and in sins hath my mother conceived me.”). (When I googled the latter, it came up as being in Psalm 51.) There are dozens more that could be used. It appears to me that the other religions find humanity to be quite sinful, even if they posit that the sins are the result of poor choices rather than inate depravity. It would be particularly appropriate for Boyce to have examined the beliefs of the Orthodox and other Christianities.

Boyce sees the continuance of the Original Sin theme in any Western thinker who has a pessimistic view of human nature, even if they use no other part of the motif. This includes Freud, who after all was from a Jewish background. He ignores the Western schools of though that believe in innocent babies and noble savages like some forms of Romanticism, Transcendentalism, and gives only glancing attention to Communism, and makes an unconvincing claim that Rousseau's thought is consistent with Original Sin.

[Added 12/31/2023: I had picked up this book again, having forgotten that I had read it. I read the ending again, particularly struck this time by the second last paragraph in which Boyce describes the West as 'a people brought up to believe that their deity had turned his back on his own creation." How did Boyce come up with this idea? I was certainly taught by my Christian religion that God is intimately involved in his creation and always available through prayer. The Jewish scriptures describe a deity very active in their history. It seems to me to be in the foundation of Christianity: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[John 3:16]" Over the centuries, people have very actively believed that God is directing history to an end, and has a life-plan for every person. I suppose that Boyce might be describing the beliefs of some Western Deists, but I wouldn't have thought that they had much concern for original sin.]

Boyce ends with “Freedom from the bondage of original sin has not come from throwing off the chains of religion, but it might yet come by bringing grace back to earth.” I'm not sure quite what he means, but grace is what the church has been offering for fifteen hundred years. On the other hand, the notoriously godless (even if some of them still have a state church) Scandinavians rate in every recent survey as some of the happiest people on earth. (See Society without God by Phil Zuckerman, for example.)… (mais)

Born Bad provides an excellent overview of the emergence and development of the concept of original sin in Christian thinking. However, its second half falters badly. Author James Boyce attempts to make the case that everyone from Adam Smith and Charles Darwin to Sigmund Freud and Richard Dawkins has retained the idea of original sin while repackaging it in non-Christian trappings. But the argument that hypothesizing that self-preservation is adaptively beneficial is equivalent to claiming that all human beings are born guilty for the moral crime of a distant ancestor doesn't stand up to even superficial scrutiny.

Boyce himself seems aware of this, resorting to ever more tenuous arguments to try and make his case. For example: he states that Apple's logo is a subconscious reference to the story of the Fall, before acknowledging in a lengthy footnote that multiple company bigwigs have stated it had nothing to do with the bibilical story...and then concluding that it must have anyway, despite everyone's statements to the contrary.

Born Bad's first 100 pages are a succinct and well-written history of an influential concept in Western culture; unfortunately, the second 100 aren't as illuminating.… (mais)

Boyce challenges the view that the 1835 pastoral land grab which caused the death of a large proportion of Port Phillip Aboriginals was caused by 'inevitable market forces' or evil and degraded convicts. Instead he places blame for the deaths at the feet of Government officials of the day, from Van Diemen's Land, New South Wales and London, whose inaction in the face of Aboriginal mortality he sees as culpable. The book is very readable and nicely structured. I learned a lot about the Port Phillip Association. Perhaps there could not be, but there was not much of an Aboriginal voice in the narrative; always the problem with a history of dispossessed people. Boyce found many supporting statements from British observers, but few or none from Aboriginal survivors or their descendants.… (mais)

This is a terrific book, and not just for Melburnians keen to learn more about their city.

James Boyce is a distinguished historian with an impressive CV, but the best thing about his books and writing is that they are very accessible for non-historians. He has the knack of writing history for the everyday reader without dumbing down. I like that.

For those reading this blog from overseas, you need to know that we Australians are a bit ambivalent about our national day. January 26th 1788 is commemorated as the day on which The First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove, but this day is also remembered as Invasion Day by many indigenous people and they regard it as a day of mourning. Outside of Sydney, there is also some muttering about the Sydneycentric choice of date, and there are also those who would rather not celebrate the founding of a penal settlement, especially not one that spent its first night on our shores in drunkenness and debauchery. At a practical level, since the day falls in the middle of our long, lazy summer holidays, teachers can’t be enlisted to engender patriotic enthusiasm amongst the young. No amount of fiddling about with the date on which the public holiday is scheduled has been able to muster the sort of hoopla that national days are supposed to arouse in the populace. For most of us, it’s a day to have a barbecue if the weather is nice, and perhaps watch the same old re-enactment that’s always on the telly (if it happens to be on the news, that is. Very few of us have ever attended an actual re-enactment, much to the disappointment of the organisers).

All this angst about our national day may well be misplaced, because James Boyce thinks that the real founding of our nation began in Melbourne, nearly 50 years later in 1835. The illegal squatter camp set up on the banks of the Yarra was the signal for European control over Australia because it was the end of controlled settlement within tightly defined limits. It put an end to Aboriginal sovereignty and that started the continental land rush. And what’s more, he thinks that the founding of Australia originated from Tasmania where settlement had reached its limits, not from New South Wales…
To read the rest of my review please visit http://anzlitlovers.com/2011/12/03/1835-the-founding-of-melbourne-and-the-conque...… (mais)